Prof.Nam's classes -2020 - Special topics



Scott Miles

Getting Your First Journal Article Published

Fields such as applied linguistics and second language education depend on contributions from scholars and practitioners to continue to grow. However, writers new to publishing academic articles often struggle to get their articles published. This article outlines some of the basic expectations for academic articles in the field of applied linguistics and language teaching and lists a number of common mistakes that new writers tend to make. Advice for each section of the typical academic article (title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion) is given. Finally, an overview of the peer review process is given, along with advice on how to work with peer reviewer feedback and revisions.

1. Introduction

This article is for writers new to publishing in academic journals, particularly in the field of second language teaching. As the editor of TESOL Review for the past 5 years (in addition to writing and reviewing articles for the past 10 years), I have noticed a number of common mistakes and misunderstandings that new writers make. The purpose of this article is to help new writers become familiar with the expectations of academic writing and thus improve their chances of getting through the peer review process. Hewlett (2002) notes, “The Catch 22 in research publishing is that few authors work effectively in the process until after they've published a few manuscripts.” Though it may be true that nothing can take the place of experience, some initial guidance can hopefully make the process less frustrating.

2. What are good topics?

It is a common mistake for novice authors to send their articles to a journal without first checking to make sure their article will fit into the overall theme and purpose of the journal. Every journal will have its own type of preferred articles. Some journals prefer research with clear practical applications, while others are biased towards articles with more theoretical or descriptive ends. Research that addresses an issue that is particular to one country or region may encounter difficulty in getting published in a journal with a more international scope. Read the guidelines for submissions and read over a number of articles in recent issues of the journal to get an idea of whether the journal is a good fit for your topic.

We can make some generalities, though, about what academic journals tend to expect in an article. Epstein, Kenway, and Boden (2007:26) provide some general guidelines on what academic journals expect to see in an article:

• They present new knowledge, either in the form of substantive research findings, theoretical developments, new insights into existing debates, new analyses of existing knowledge or a synthesis of the literature.

• They are grounded in the relevant literature, demonstrating familiarity and engagement in an on-going academic conversation.

• They address new or familiar issues pertinent to the discipline or field.

• They ask and attempt to answer provocative questions in a persuasive manner.

• They are well written, with carefully crafted and sustained argument

One type of article that I see occasionally that does not fit well with most academic journals is the opinion piece. These articles often come across as an ‘everything wrong with language education” rant and provide very little in the way of relevant references to the academic literature (violating the second guideline provided above). It is highly unlikely that one individual has recently identified a problem or solution in language teaching that has not already been researched and discussed in the academic literature. Indeed, I find that most articles like this tend to cover ground that has already been discussed and debated in the field for decades, and thus offer very little, if anything, that is new. Opinion pieces can be publishable, but the author should still show familiarity with academic literature on the subject and support arguments with references.

MA thesis

It is common for MA graduates to try to publish their thesis. This is a good practice and should be done far more often than it is. You have selected an interesting area for research, your supervisor has (likely) checked to make sure you conducted the research reasonably well, and thus the findings are valuable and should be disseminated. However, it is important to know that the thesis can never simply be published as is in an academic journal. A thesis can have 30,000 to 60,000 (or more!) words, but most journals have word limits for articles around 7,000-9000.

Going from 50,000 words to 7000 words is quite a challenge. Generally, you cannot just cut and paste entire sections of the thesis into the article. The article still requires an introduction, a literature review, methods section, and so on, meaning that all sections of the thesis will need to be rewritten. A literature review that covered 20 pages in your thesis, for example, will need to be cut down to 2-3 pages. This is a daunting task, but the advice given in the following sections can be helpful to serve as a guide.

Academic writing style

The best way to become familiar with the common style, structures, and nuances of academic writing style is to read extensively in journals, particularly those of your chosen discipline. ‘Elements of Style’ (Strunk & White, 2000), with its focus on simplicity and clarity, is a classic resource for academic writing. A slightly different but also very useful guide to academic writing can be found in ‘Adios, Strunk and White: A Handbook for the New Academic Essay’ (Hoffman & Hoffman, 2011). Though there may be some degree of differences in opinion on proper academic style writing, Bem’s (2002) general advice holds, “The primary criteria for good scientific writing are accuracy and clarity. If your article is interesting and written with style, fine. But these are subsidiary virtues. First strive for accuracy and clarity.” (p. 7).

If your first language is not English, find a good resource that covers many of the common sentence structures and expressions used in academic writing (e.g. Swales & Feak, 2004). Even if your command of the English language is advanced, these kinds of resources can be very helpful in raising your awareness of usage that you might have overlooked.

Avoid informal language such as contractions, idioms and slang. While the writing should be formal, avoid using over-technical or advanced vocabulary that will lose the average reader. This is particularly important in the field of language teaching, as many scholars and practitioners speak English as a second language. Speak formally but in simple and clear language that could be understood by the average native speaker university student. Assume the reader has ‘entry level’ knowledge of the general topic, but is not an expert in the field.

3. What are your Research Questions?

Any article that focuses on research must have a clear set of research questions that it intends to answer. Your research questions will shape and guide every section of your paper: what to cover in the introduction and literature review, how you determined your research methods, and of course, what you focus on in your discussion and conclusion sections.

Clear and focused research questions lead to a clear and focused article. At no point in your paper should you risk the reader becoming confused about what the article is about. Furthermore, the reader should also be convinced that the research questions are worth answering. Summers (2001) lists uninteresting research questions among the most common reasons for article rejection.

4. Parts of the article

Title and abstract

Keep your title relatively short (6-15 words). The title should attract attention and be fairly clear about what type of study is being reported. A clever title can be helpful, but generally an informative title is better than trying to be too creative.

An abstract is a summary of the article. As abstracts are short (typically from 100-250 words long) the author needs to get right to the main points. In most cases, the abstract should be one paragraph and have few, if any, citations. Abstracts are important as most readers judge the abstract before deciding whether to read the whole the article, and in effect serve as a ‘window display’ for the article to bring in readers (Feldman, 2004:2). Peer reviewers will, of course, read the entire article regardless of whether the abstract is enticing or not, but the abstract will still serve to give an impression that will affect how the reviewer judges the article. Make sure the first impression is a good one.

A good abstract gives concrete information (without going into too much detail) so the reader has a clear idea of what to expect in the article. Perry et al. (2003:658) propose seven elements in a good abstract.

• Element 1: The abstract has to start with a brief theme sentence to orientate the reader about the overall issue addressed in the article. This sentence should grab the reader’s attention.

• Element 2: The abstract should then indicate the main aim or purpose of the study.

• Element 3: Next, the academic and/or practical importance of the study should be explained.

• Element 4: The methodology used in the study should also be briefly described.

• Element 5: The main findings of the study should be summarized.

• Element 6: A statement of conclusions should indicate the contribution made by the study in filling gaps in the literature.

• Element 7: Finally, the practical … implications of the study’s findings should be highlighted where appropriate.

As most or all of the above need to be covered in about 200 words, the author needs to be concise, with each element taking just 1-3 sentences.

5. Introduction

Introduction

Summers (2001:410) details four aims of a good introduction section:

1. Establish the importance of the general area of interest

2. Indicate in general terms what has been done in this broad area

3. Identify important gaps, inconsistencies, and/or controversies in the relevant literature

4. Provide a concise statement of the manuscript’s purpose(s), the contributions the manuscript makes to the literature

The first two aims should be done briefly, but give the reader a fair idea of the general context of the issue that the study addresses. The third aim is quite important in convincing the reader that there is a problematic gap in the literature that needs to be filled, and thus a bit more space should be allotted to this area. The fourth aim can be done in one concise paragraph, but should give the reader a very clear idea of what gap in the literature the author intends to address. For an article of 6000-7000 words, the introduction should take 500-1000 words.

After reading the introduction to an article, the reader should understand why this issue is important, know exactly what the author intends to show in the paper, and have some confidence that the author will address this issue in a reliable way. A good introduction, along with the title and abstract, thus ‘sells’ the article (Summers, 2001). A peer reviewer whose interest is piqued in the abstract and introduction is likely to read the article with more goodwill, patience and attention.

6. Literature Review

The literature review a more detailed survey of what has already been presented and argued in the field on your topic, and thus gives the reader a good idea of the current state of the field. Novice writers are often unsure just what and how much to cover in the literature review. Often papers will place, without any semblance of order, all the information related to the topic they can find, regardless of whether it is relevant to understand the purpose of the research paper or not.

Most articles will devote between 1000-2000 words for the literature review, making it one of the longer sections of the article. Nonetheless, literature reviews need to be focused. As noted earlier, the literature review is largely guided by the research questions. There is not enough space to give a grand overview of the field, but just enough for the reader to understand what research relevant to the research questions has to say. The literature review should appear as a narrative, leading the reader through the relevant history and leading up logically to the research questions addressed in the paper. By the time the literature review ends, it should transition logically to your study. As Bem (2002) puts it, “the review should be "a straightforward tale of a circumscribed question in want of an answer. It is not a novel with subplots and flashbacks, but a short story with a single, linear narrative line. Let this line stand out in bold relief." (p.4)

Some articles address research questions that have already been explored in the literature. This is not necessarily a problem, but the author needs to show that 1) she is aware of this previous research, and 2) she has a specific purpose in re-exploring the issue. This can be simply confirming what previous research has found in a slightly different context or with different (and arguably superior) methods. This purpose should be made explicit and guide the entire study.

Consider the reviewer (and readers) as informed on the general issues of English education, but perhaps unaware of the specifics. General terms like EFL and ESL do not need definitions, but terms like Focus on Form or Content Based Instruction may require a brief description (a few sentences should suffice). Papers that drift into disciplines outside of applied linguistics and language teaching (e.g., politics, philosophy, psychology, and economics) may require more explanations of even some of the basic concepts.

To conduct your literature review, you will need access to academic journals, which often requires being affiliated with a university or other institution which has access to major journal databases. Avoid overuse of ‘secondary citations’, in which you cite one author who is citing yet another author (e.g. “Smith (1985, as cited in Anderson, 1999) claimed…”). It is better to check and site the original source, as this shows your literature review is careful and thorough. Make sure there are no major holes in your literature review. Your literature review should be relatively current. If most of your sources are older than 10 years, then you probably are missing many important articles. If your research is conducted in or otherwise related to a specific country or culture, then make sure your search of the literature includes journals published in that region. Some of these articles might be published in the language of the country or region, which can pose a challenge, but you’ll find many are published in English. As you read, you’ll find some key articles that are very similar to your own study. These are crucial to report well so the reader can see how your results build on, confirm, or contradict, these studies.

7. Methodology

It is beyond the scope of this article to go over the methods of conducting various kinds of research. Before conducting the study, it is essential to check your methodological decisions with an experienced researcher, or at least consult one or more books giving guidance on conducting research (e.g., Brown, 1988; Burns, 2010; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Kotze, 2007; McDonough & McDonough, 1997; Walliman, 2001). Articles are often rejected due to fatal problems with methodology, which may make the paper unpublishable regardless of how well written the article may be. This is not to say your study has to be completely free of methodological weaknesses—no study can be—but just that your study is conducted in a way that can produce meaningful results. Nothing can make up for a poorly designed study, and if your paper is rejected due to major flaws in the methodology, there may be no recourse but to conduct the entire study again.

The methodology section generally has three sections:

• Participants

• Procedure for data collection

• Measures for analysis

When discussing your methodology, make sure to give enough information about the context of the study and how the study was conducted so that the reader can evaluate the validity of your findings. If your study is based on a survey, for example, the following should be clearly expressed:

• Who are the participants in your study? How were they selected?

• How well do the participants represent the larger population of the group?

• How was the survey designed? Was it piloted to make sure it was clear to the participants? How did you ensure that the survey questions were not worded in a way that might bias participants’ answers?

• What was the exact procedure for conducting the survey? What directions did the respondents receive? What unexpected issues arose while conducting the survey and how did you respond?

• How were the data recorded, calculated and analyzed? What statistics were run on the results? What was the protocol for addressing unclear responses or incomplete surveys?

Be upfront about the weaknesses of your study design. No study is ever conducted in ideal situations or goes off exactly as planned. Discuss any problems you had that required ad hoc changes in your methodology or otherwise might have affected the validity of your findings.

Ideally, you will give enough information about your methods that another research could duplicate your research. Include actual copies of surveys, tests, scoring rubrics and other materials used in the study in the appendices. If you used materials that included a language other than English, it may be best to include the original form (exactly as was used in the study) and a second copy which provides a translation.

If you have different groups in your study, refer to them by a short but easily identifiable name so the reader can easily keep track of each. Generic names such as ‘Group 1’ or ‘Treatment B’ necessitate constant referrals back to the part of the paper which describes the treatments, which is annoying and often confusing. Group names such as ‘explicit study group’ and ‘implicit study group’, or ‘free-writing group’ and ‘guided writing group’, for example, are far easier for the reader to keep track of both during the remainder of the methods section and again later in the results and discussion sections.

Finally, you may need to address potential ethical issues in this section as well. For example, how did you ensure the participants understood the purpose of the study and were willing to participate? How was the study designed to make sure no participants were (or potentially could be) harmed, embarrassed, or disadvantaged in any way?

Results

The results section presents and summarizes the raw data of the measures used in the study. For quantitative studies, this is where you will place the statistical analyses.

Refrain from interpreting how the data answers your research questions at this point. In the Results section, just show the ‘facts’ and leave the analysis and interpretation for the Discussion section. If you are reporting statistics, begin with the descriptive statistics (typically the total or mean scores and standard deviations for each group), followed by a table showing whether the differences between the groups reached statistical significance (meaning, the differences between your groups is the result of the treatment, and not just due to chance fluctuations). If you are investigating treatments, the effect size (a measure of the strength of each treatment) should also be reported. Statistics can be a bit tricky for people new to research. There are some good books that can walk you through the procedures for selecting and running statistics for your study (e.g., Pallant, 2011), but it is advisable to elicit outside help to make sure you get it right. It is also a good idea to get assistance before you conduct the study to make sure that you are collecting the data in a way that can be statistically analyzed properly.

Make the tables and figures as comprehensible and reader friendly as possible. Readers often prefer to skip the text and try to assess the results from the tables and figures alone. You will still need to summarize the tables and figures (do so directly before or after each table/figure), but do this concisely, drawing attention to the results which are key to answering the research questions.

9. Discussion

While the results section summarizes the findings, the discussion should let the reader know how the author interprets the information. How does the data answer the research questions? How does your study fit into the broader picture (as discussed in the Literature Review)? What questions remain? What new questions arise? What does the information mean for language teachers?

A good discussion chapter will typically cover the following:

• A brief summary of the main results

• A discussion on how the results answer, or fail to answer, the research questions

• Discussion on how the findings of this study fit into the general literature. What does your study add to the field?

• A discussion on the practical implications of your findings in language education

• Acknowledgement of weaknesses in the study, and how they might affect your conclusions

A common mistake in the discussion section is for the author to make claims that are too bold. One research study alone rarely settles an issue, and studies involving small groups in one particular context are quite limited. These studies are useful, but they only give one small piece of the puzzle. The readers (and especially the peer reviewers!) need some confidence that the author has carefully considered all the limitations and possible interpretations of the data, and is not trying to present the study as something it is not.

With this in mind, authors should be careful to qualify and soften their claims. Consider the following examples (see Swales & Feak, 2004, for further examples):

■ This study shows that learners benefit more from X than from Y.

← This study suggests that some young learners may benefit more from X rather than Y.

• These results clearly show this new method is superior to traditional approaches to grammar instruction

← The evidence suggests that this new approach to grammar instruction may be more effective than some traditional approaches, at least in regards to the development of declarative grammar knowledge.

While authors should be cautious and tentative when making claims, it is completely acceptable to offer interpretations of the results that may be a bit speculative. Just make it very clear in your writing when you are making claims based on your study results and when you are making speculations.

Typically the discussion section includes an acknowledgement of the limitations of the study. Generally, most authors talk about the weaknesses in their study methodology, such as having a low number of participants, or participants that only represent a limited population of learners. Alternative interpretations of the findings should also be acknowledged. Most reviewers like to see that the author has put serious consideration into how their findings might be inaccurate. It may be tempting to downplay potential flaws in your study to make it look stronger, but this too often gives the impression that the author is too eager to produce positive results, and may be biased. No serious scholar wants this kind of reputation.

11. Formatting and Proofreading

It is common for new writers to be lax on formatting and proofreading when making the first submission, perhaps with the belief that the minor details can be taken care of later. Formatting and proofreading may seem like minor concerns in comparison to the overall content, but for academic articles attention to detail is always important. When peer reviewers see that the author made little attempt to proofread and adhere to the formatting requirements of the journal, it can raise doubts about the author’s work in general (Mullins & Kiley, 2002). If you were sloppy in your presentation of the article, perhaps you were also careless in your literature review and research methodology? Though it is not typical for an article to be rejected solely due to formatting and proofreading issues, this lack of attention to detail may push a reviewer on the fence about the study over to the side of rejection.

Each journal has its own preferences for formatting. Check the submission guidelines carefully (on the website of the journal, and often found in the back pages of journal copies as well). Some editors will simply return articles unread if there is no apparent attempt to follow the journal’s guidelines. Articles that are over the word limit are also usually returned directly by the editor.

If you are unclear about some issue, their published articles can serve as models. Most journals in the field of applied linguistics and language teaching follow the American Psychological Association (APA, 2009). Take care to double check that all the in-text references are listed in the reference section (and vice-versa). Check out how the journal prefers the headings and subheadings to be listed. For your references, double-check the capitalization and punctuation rules. Peer reviewers often scan the reference section to make sure the writer has generally followed reference formatting

Proofreading is a must. Set aside the paper for a few days and read it again, from start to finish, with fresh eyes. Though this will help you catch many mistakes, keep in mind that self-editing is limited, as it is quite difficult to anticipate what parts of your writing may be ambiguous or confusing to a reader who has less knowledge about the subject than you. Having a colleague who is willing to read over your paper critically can make the difference between publication or rejection. No matter how well you conduct and report your research, peer reviewers will typically make numerous requests for revisions. If your colleague has nothing but praise for your paper, then you’ll need to find someone else who is either more knowledgeable about the expectations of academic writing or is capable of being blunt. Joining are starting a special interest group (SIG) devoted to research in a local teacher organization such as KOTESOL or JALT can be a good way to find like-minded colleagues who would be willing give informal feedback on your rough draft.

Submission and Decisions

When you send your paper to a journal, the editor or assistant editor will screen it to make sure the submission is within the scope of what is acceptable for the journal (topic, general quality of writing, word length, proper formatting, free of excessive grammatical errors, etc.). Some will run the paper through software that can detect plagiarism (including self-plagiarism: no parts of your paper should be published previously). If there is a problem, the editor will return your submission and likely request that you attend to the problem and then resubmit. If there are no glaring issues, the editor will inform you that the article has been sent to the peer reviewers.

Note that some journals charge a reviewing fee and/or a publishing fee. Those that charge a reviewing fee will expect the money to be paid before the peer reviewing process begins, and there are typically no refunds if the paper is rejected. Some journals put out by teacher organizations only accept submissions by paid members, which in effect is the same as charging peer reviewing fees (though you would be able to submit more than one article per year without an additional fee). Publishing fees vary, but often range between $100-$300 (U.S.). These are charged when all requested revisions have been made and the article is ready to be published. Read the submission guidelines for each journal to see what, if any, fees apply.

Most journals demand that during the peer review process you agree not to send your article to other journals. Editors and peer reviewers expend a lot of time and effort in the peer review process, and it is unprofessional to shop an article around to see which journal gives you the best response. This can be doubly frustrating to authors who patiently wait several months only to find out that their article has been rejected, but this is an inevitable part of the process.

The peer review process

Editors send submissions to 2 or 3 (depending on the journal) peer reviewers. These are experts in the field that the editor believes are qualified to judge the value of your paper. The editor relies on these reviewers to assist in making the decision of whether or not to accept the article for publication. For most journals, the peer review process is blind, meaning that the identity of the reviewers and authors will not be told to either party. Editors will remove title pages and any information in the article that might identify the author before sending the article to the reviewers.

If the results of the peer review process are delayed, it is most likely due to one or more of the peer reviewers missing the deadline set by the editor. Most peer reviewers are not paid for their work (of if they are paid, the compensation is rather low), so it is easy for your paper to find itself near the bottom of their to-do lists. If you have not heard back from the journal after several months, a friendly reminder to the editor is about the most that can be done.

Generally, the peer reviewers have four general options regarding accepting or rejecting the paper:

• Accept as is

• Accept with revisions

• Reject, but may consider accepting with major revisions

• Reject

The first category occurs so rarely that journals should probably remove it, and indeed, some journals label this category as ‘Accept with minor revisions’. For beginning authors, a clear acceptance such as this is almost impossible to achieve with a journal of even middling quality.

The second category (Accept with revisions) is good news. It generally means the reviewer likes the paper, but needs to see some clarifications and changes before it is ready to be published. If the majority of the reviewers make this suggestion, your paper stands a high chance of being published.

Reviewers who select the third category are basically saying that the article could be publishable, but they are not confident that the author can make the necessary revisions. If the majority of reviewers select this category, the editor will typically decide to reject the article and not allow a resubmission. However, the author should take some consolation in that the paper, if substantially revised, may have a fair chance of publication if submitted to another journal.

If the reviewers are split on their decisions to accept or reject the article (for journals who only use two peer reviewers), the editor has several options. The editor may allow the author to revise the paper and then present the revisions to the peer reviewers once more to see if the reviewer with the dissenting opinion can be persuaded to accept the paper. Some journals will elicit a third reviewer to act as a tie-breaker. Finally, the editor may simply make the final decision to reject a paper with a split decision (this is somewhat more typical in prestigious journals).

The final category, rejection, is quite common with first time authors, especially if you submit your paper to a prestigious journal. If the majority of reviewers make this decision, the editor will likely not allow resubmission. Firm rejections are often given to articles that have fatally flawed methodology (meaning that the entire study would have to be redone), or other serious issues to the point that the reviewer has little confidence that the author is capable of revising the paper sufficiently to result in an article suitable for publication. If the majority (or all) reviewers make this decision, the author may need some additional training in research methodology and/or academic writing skills before again attempting to write and submit an article.

You’ll see quickly that reviewers can vary widely in their feedback. An aspect of your paper that elicits righteous indignation from one reviewer might not be mentioned at all by another. Despite the inevitable degree of subjectivity in the peer-reviewing process, make no mistake: A well-written paper will pass most of the time and a poorly-written paper will rarely make it through. But for many papers that find themselves somewhere in the middle, having your paper accepted or rejected can be just the luck of the draw. When you experience a rejection, understand that it is an inevitable part of the publishing game and do not get discouraged. Learn from the feedback and submit the paper to another journal.

Some reviewers give very specific advice for revisions. Other reviewers may come across as carelessly dismissive and give vague (and thus not particularly helpful) criticisms. I generally recommend paying closer attention to the reviewers who make specific instructions. They are likely the ones who are carefully reading your article with a constructive attitude, even if their decision is to reject.

Most authors cannot help but respond emotionally to negative feedback, at least initially. Some peer reviewers soften their criticisms with tact and an encouraging tone, but others can be quite harsh. Expect this, and try not to take it personally. As Summers (2001) puts it: “Authors need to pause to recover from their initial emotional reaction and develop a pragmatic approach to dealing with the reviews. They need to keep in mind that even the most critical reviewers are not vindictive and most of what they say is valid criticism.” (p.412).

In the thousands of reviewer comments I have seen as editor, this is true. Yes, some reviewers misread articles and give questionable feedback, and others may be overly nitpicky on irrelevant points, but the majority of reviewer comments will rightly indicate weaknesses in the paper. And if more than one peer reviewer point out the same issue, you can almost be guaranteed that revisions in that area are sorely needed. I have found in my own writing that far more often than not, when I go ahead and make a revision that at first I thought was unnecessary, I later realized that the revision indeed made the paper stronger. “It is rare for papers to emerge from the review process unimproved – even if bruised authors are sometimes reluctant to admit it.” (Epstein, Kenway, & Boden, 2007, p. 23)

How you respond to peer reviewer feedback will make a big difference in how they respond in turn to your revised submission. Write in a positive manner, acknowledging the merit of the criticism. Do not get defensive and critical of the reviewers. If you really feel that a suggestion for revision is not warranted, first make it clear that you understand the reviewer’s concerns before explaining why you feel the revision should not be made. You might even offer to acknowledge this issue in the text of the article itself. For some reviewers, this can be sufficient. What you want to avoid is a negative response to reviewer recommendations which will just cause the reviewers to dig in their heels and block the paper over an issue that, 9 times out of 10 in my experience, could have been worked out.

The editor may determine that the revisions are suitable without notifying the reviewers, but generally the revisions are run by the reviewers a second time. The process can then be repeated (the article is returned again to the author for further revisions), or the editor may simply decide to let the article pass or be rejected. Editors are generally hesitant to go against a strong opinion of a reviewer as to do so often would defeat the point of having reviewers in the first place. As an editor, I occasionally see articles pass that I personally would have rejected, and see articles rejected that I thought could have been revised into good articles, but journals should reflect the academic community, and not the decisions of one person. It’s an imperfect process, to be sure, but there are enough checks and balances to keep the field moving forward.

Conclusion

Writing academic articles is not an easy process, but getting an article through the review process and into print can be very rewarding. Smaller journals can be a good place to begin, as there are usually no fees for peer reviewing, and peer reviewers for smaller journals tend to give more constructive and extensive feedback for new writers than those in prestigious journals. Once you’ve been through the process a few times, you’ll be ready to make a name for yourself in the higher level journals.

References

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Bem, D. J. (2002). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., & Roediger III, H. L. (Eds.) The compleat academic: A career guide (pp. 2-26). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from



Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. New York: Routledge

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York: RouteledgeFalmer.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, D., Kenway, J., & Boden, R., (2007). Writing for publication. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Feldman, D.C. (2004). The devil is in the details: Converting good research into publishable articles. Journal of Management, 30(1), 1-6.

Hewlett, K. (2002). How to publish your journal paper: Understanding the nuances of the process smooths the publishing ride. Monitor on Psychology, 33(8). 50. Retrieved from

Hoffman, G., & Hoffman, G. (2011). Adios, Strunk and White: A handbook for the new academic essay (5th ed.). Huntington Beach, CA: Verve Press.

Kotze, T. (2007). Guidelines on writing a first quantitative academic article (2nd ed.). University of Pretoria. Accessed at _academic _journal_article.pdf.

McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. U.K.: Arnold.

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Summers, J.O. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in Marketing: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,29(4), 405-415.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Accessed at

Walliman, N. (2001). Your research project: A step-by-step guide for the first-time researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download